Weird Science tries to control its anger, gets even angrier

Banana peels, bird poop, and some very strange claims by the Journal of …

Self control causes pervasive anger: That's actually not a joke headline; it really does. Earlier research had indicated people who are exercising self control—say smokers attempting to quit—are more prone to aggression. But a new study indicates that the anger appears in most aspects of a person's life (that link may not be working yet). "We find that after exerting self-control," the authors report, "people exhibit increased preference for anger-themed content, greater interest in faces exhibiting anger, greater endorsement of anger-framed appeals, and greater irritation to others’ attempts to control their behavior." Exercising self-control in these cases involved things like picking a healthy snack or spending less money, so we're not talking about major life events.

Plants are particular about their carrion eaters: A classic example of evolution are flowers that are so uniquely shaped that only a single insect species, with appropriately shaped mouth parts, can fertilize them. Researchers have now provided another example of this plant-insect specificity, one not based on shape, but rather the reeking stench of death. A few flowers attract pollinators by smelling like a corpse, which attracts bugs that are into laying their eggs on dead animals. There is an orchid species that releases such a finely tuned stench that only one species of fly lands on it. The plant is so convincing that females actually lay their eggs on it.

Weird non-cosmology: This one's quite a tale. Some of you may remember that a few years back, researchers announced they had found what appeared to be cell-like organic structures inside a meteor that originated on Mars. The interpretation ended up being controversial—various non-biological processes can produce similar deposits—and the evidence has since been considered inconclusive. History seems to have repeated itself with a paper written by a NASA scientist but published in the rather unorthodox looking Journal of Cosmology. The paper claims to have found evidence of bacteria in a variety of meteors, suggesting life might be all over the solar system. Scientists quickly made some of the same critiques of this paper, noting that we don't know whether these are real cells and, if so, whether they're contamination.

There it might have ended, except the people behind the Journal of Cosmology have not responded to criticism well, pretending that no credible sources had voiced any objections, and lashing out at NASA for pursuing a religious persecution of its own staff. This e-mail from the editor, hosted by David Dobbs, is positively hallucinogenic, containing statements like "The choice is simple: Science as advocated by the Journal of Cosmology, or religion masquerading as science as advocated by our critics." The whole thing's worth a read.

You win some, you lose some: Clean drinking water is generally a very good thing for human health, but leaving the disinfectants, like chlorine, in can actually have an adverse effect on health. A study of disinfectant exposure in Spain found that the wealthy manage to avoid ingesting disinfectants in tap water by having more bottled water, but they compensate for that lower risk by spending more time in pools, where they get exposed to chlorine anyway.

Hopping continents as bird poop: Lots of species that produce berries have their seeds spread far and wide by birds, which eat the berries and then drop the seeds in their droppings. In the case of the crowberry, this method seems to have helped it hop continents. The North American species show the normal branching pattern of speciation based on molecular clock experiments, but every single South American species traces back to a common ancestor, one that the authors conclude was brought to South America inside a bird.

Looks like that editor is happy with the idea of nuking his career. Would be nice to have a name to go with the idiotic rant though. Is it Rudolf Schild (Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian, Cambridge, MA) or N. C. Wickramasinghe (Centre for Astrobiology, Cardiff University, UK), or Michael Russell (NASA, Planetary Science & Life Detection Section, Jet Propulsion Laboratories, California Institute of Technology, CA)?

You know what, my bet's on the latter Executive "Guest" Editor - sounds like there's some serious infighting going on at NASA and people are burning their bridges.

I'm finding the lack of impartial and objective critique of Dr Hoovers paper regarding his findings to be quite disgraceful, and to a point, offensive.

I come to this website and it's sister site, WIRED, because I find that to a certain extent, the contributors are objective, insightful and for most of the time willing to use the process of journalism for it's proper means.

In regards to Mr John Timmer's remark about the JOC email being "positively hallucinatory", I find that comment to be quite disrespectful and without any substance whatsoever. Perhaps before you broadcast your willingness to jump on a bandwagon that is being driven by the religious right wing you may wish to consider the possibility of having to eat your own words in the future.

It seems that people are quite willing to embark on a voyage of ridicule and hate speech against Dr Hoover and to an extent, the Journal of Cosmology, purely based on the viewpoint that because the paper was published on a website that doesn't have the flash and grandeur of any of the Conde-Nast or other web hosting domains, it lacks credibility.

The responses from the JOC are indicative of the frustration they are experiencing due to the lack of genuine scientific interest, from both the established scientific journals such as Nature & Science and the many so called scientists and journalists who have done nothing but ridicule this mans claims on their many blogs. I refer to Mr Dobbs and his friends linked to in his remarks on his blog as a case in point.

It also seems that when confronted with a situation that could very well change the way we view our evolution on this planet and most importantly, proving once and for all that the viewpoint of the "Bible" and the "Church" is most certainly a fairy tale, the most typical response, as expected, is to revert to the childlike way of closing our eyes and ears and hoping that the thing we are afraid of will go away.

This issue will never just "disappear", nor will man-kinds innate curiosity of our origins in this massive universe that we inhabit.

Perhaps we should stay focused on the core of what this man is trying to present to the world at large.

And that, is the possibility that we are not just a random accident of proteins and elements coalescing in the primordial soup of 5 bllion years ago, and that we could and probably most likely co-exist in the universe with other life-forms, be they single cell amoebas or highly evolved beings.

Stay objective. And don't let your emotions override logical thought. I believe that is the proper way to establish credible journalistic process.

I trust your response will be forthcoming Mr Timmer, and in a manner that doesn't rely on personal attacks.

And that, is the possibility that we are not just a random accident of proteins and elements coalescing in the primordial soup of 5 bllion years ago, and that we could and probably most likely co-exist in the universe with other life-forms, be they single cell amoebas or highly evolved beings.

Pics or GTFO

That seems like an unfounded belief without evidence, dude. And the evidence has been ... lacking and/or uncertain.

And that, is the possibility that we are not just a random accident of proteins and elements coalescing in the primordial soup of 5 bllion years ago, and that we could and probably most likely co-exist in the universe with other life-forms, be they single cell amoebas or highly evolved beings.

Pics or GTFO ;)

That seems like an unfounded belief without evidence, dude. And the evidence has been ... lacking and/or uncertain.

And that the belief that Jesus walked on water and turned water into wine with a magical wave of his hand is not "unfounded belief without evidence" does not fall into the same category eh?

I'm more inclined to believe scientific speculation and direct empirical evidence than a fable that has been rewritten that many times it's no longer a valid source of evidence.

Come on mate, I appreciate your attempt at levity regarding my comment but in all seriousness this particular matter and the ultimate proof of the evidence submitted could be the foundation stone for the advancement of our knowledge of the universe and the origins of life. Why are we so reluctant to face the possibility of life elsewhere?

All trolling aside, If I had pics they would be posted haha. And yo mama would most likely feature ;)

But you may refer to Dr Hoover's paper and his colleague's other submissions for information related to this matter if you like.

So is this anger we're reading about caused by the exercise of self-control or is it about the effects of deprivation and the acting out of the effects of that self-imposed deprivation? I wonder if seeking out ways to vent the frustration isn't a good thing.

So is this anger we're reading about caused by the exercise of self-control or is it about the effects of deprivation and the acting out of the effects of that self-imposed deprivation? I wonder if seeking out ways to vent the frustration isn't a good thing.

It seems that the deprivation via self control method vs the normal methods of dealing with the anger is leading to further problems.

Obviously when you let a pressure cooker create enough pressure without venting some of it, it's gonna pop in a big way.

Best method, punch something, or someone, preferably someone like PZ Myers. Or that bogan Corey kid from Australia.

In regards to Mr John Timmer's remark about the JOC email being "positively hallucinatory", I find that comment to be quite disrespectful and without any substance whatsoever.

In the JoC email, we find:

Quote:

We have seen this before, when Galileo an Giordano Bruno were threatened by the Inquisition, forcing Galileo to recant and torturing and burning Bruno alive when he refused to deny that planets orbited other stars. The same mindset is alive and thriving like a cancer at NASA headquarters, with NASA’s chief scientist acting as Grand Inquisitor.

There has been a struggle, a war, between Science and Religion, for almost 2,000 years, and this war continues to this day...

Comparing the situations of Giorano Bruno (who proposed a sort of pantheism, and was burned at the stake as a heretic) and Galileo (who made the Pope look bad at a time when the Roman church was taking it in the shins from protestantism, and who was sentenced to 'house arrest' as a result) reveals either a poor understanding of the history of those situations, or a broad-brush approach to argument. Neither is respectable. Comparing this argument to either of those situations displays a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific discourse operates. NASA simply does not have anything like the political power that the Roman church had in Bruno's day, or in Galileo's.

If that's not hallucinatory enough for you, there's the second paragraph I quoted (but only in small part). To think that there's been some sort of grand battle between science and religion going on for 2000 years is positively hallucinatory, as anyone who has studied the history of science could tell you. Daniel Boorstin's book 'The Discoverers' (which I've used as a textbook in introductory to history of science classes) shows the close relationship between science and religious thought throughout history. It clearly shows that different religions, and even the same religion at different places and times, have different relationships with scientific thought, discovery, etc.

None of these issues with the email have any bearing on one's position WRT Hoover's claims or the criticisms of it. I don't know much about his work, the responses to it, or the controversy surrounding it; I do know that the email makes no sense, and is reasonably described as 'hallucinatory' because many of the claims that it makes are plainly at odds with verifiable facts about the world.

And that the belief that Jesus walked on water and turned water into wine with a magical wave of his hand is not "unfounded belief without evidence" does not fall into the same category eh?

I'm more inclined to believe scientific speculation and direct empirical evidence than a fable that has been rewritten that many times it's no longer a valid source of evidence.

The attempts to equate justifiable scientific scepticism over Hoover's conclusions with religious totalitarianism are ludicrous. Mr Shaw, your arguments amount to nothing more than the fervid ranting seen in the email.

This has got nothing to do with religion, and nothing to do with any sort of entrenched belief-system. Hoover's conclusions are simply not supported by the evidence he demonstrates. His X-ray analysis is inconclusive and all his imaging studies show are filamentous elements. It's a massive leap to conclude that these filaments were generated by bacteria.

I have no problem at all with the idea that life might have originated elsewhere, but I have a huge problem with 'scientists' who expect others to accept grand conclusions on the basis of the flimsiest of evidence and then froth at the mouth when they're informed of the deficiencies in their thesis. The hysterical language used in the email does nothing more than signal the emptiness of the underlying work.

If anyone is engaging in religiose ideation, it's the editor of JoC. The notion that "The Hoover findings are valid," simply because they've been "peer-reviewed"* is the sort of error I would expect from a first-year student. Anyone who thinks the peer-review process, even in the most prestigious journals, acts as some sort of arbiter of scientific 'fact' has fundamentally failed to grasp the nature of the scientific process. The claim that "We confirm the validity of his discovery" smacks of Papal Infallibility, and is just as worthless to anyone seeking to get closer to the truth.

And seriously, Mr Shaw, WTF is up with your 'closet lesbian' remark on the Wired post? That's as disgusting and pathetic as your attempt to justify it.

*[Edit: it turns out that Hoover attempted to publish this article in the rather more reputable International Journal of Astrobiology back in 2007. It was peer-reviewed back then, and rejected.]

In regards to Mr John Timmer's remark about the JOC email being "positively hallucinatory", I find that comment to be quite disrespectful and without any substance whatsoever. Perhaps before you broadcast your willingness to jump on a bandwagon that is being driven by the religious right wing

Evidence for this claim (i.e. that critcism is being driven by the religious right wing)?

Quote:

It seems that people are quite willing to embark on a voyage of ridicule and hate speech against Dr Hoover and to an extent, the Journal of Cosmology, purely based on the viewpoint that because the paper was published on a website that doesn't have the flash and grandeur of any of the Conde-Nast or other web hosting domains, it lacks credibility.

Evidence for this claim (i.e. that criticism is being based purely on the appearance of the Journal's website)?

Quote:

The responses from the JOC are indicative of the frustration they are experiencing due to the lack of genuine scientific interest

It also seems that when confronted with a situation that could very well change the way we view our evolution on this planet .... the most typical response, as expected, is to revert to the childlike way of closing our eyes and ears and hoping that the thing we are afraid of will go away.

So is this anger we're reading about caused by the exercise of self-control or is it about the effects of deprivation and the acting out of the effects of that self-imposed deprivation? I wonder if seeking out ways to vent the frustration isn't a good thing.

It seems that the deprivation via self control method vs the normal methods of dealing with the anger is leading to further problems.

Obviously when you let a pressure cooker create enough pressure without venting some of it, it's gonna pop in a big way.

Best method, punch something, or someone, preferably someone like PZ Myers. Or that bogan Corey kid from Australia.

The habit/self control/frustration/bottling up issue is an important thing for me. Growing up suicidal and hating myself, this was a continuous cyclical problem. Do something stupid, get mad, act out by doing something stupid, etc.

You can't hope to win against your anger directly. It's too powerful and has too close a connection to the base parts of the brain that underly our consciousness. You can't get angry with your anger, or frustrated with your frustration in hopes of defeating them! Despite that, that is exactly what we all do by default. We shoot ourselves in the foot constantly by getting annoyed at our own inability to be what we want ourselves to be; piling on negative emotion which further exhausts us, making it even harder to fix the things we dislike in ourselves.

As difficult as it is to admit, those habits, along with our habit of reacting negatively to their very existence, are part of who you are right now. To give them up, you have to recognize all those things which you don't like about yourself, including bad habits, and embrace them as part of who you are for the moment. They are there because of things which have happened in the past, both good and bad, all which have created the current moment's self, and the staging point what what you will become - that person *without* those habits. Once you love and embrace them as part of what you are now, that being which will become what you want, they will lose their power slightly. As they lose that grip on you, *then* you can successfully let them go.

There is a massive difference between recognizing your bad habits and letting them go and suppressing them/bottling them up. When you let them go, they don't have a hold on you anymore; they are inconsequential and non-effective. When you fight them, they are always in the back of your mind, sapping your will power and strength to do anything else. They are just as strong as always, but you need to actively bury them; and they likely have more patience than you.

Do you still like the movies, music, and fashion which you loved as a child, to the point that you want to watch Mary Poppins 50 times or wear bell bottoms? Do you constantly have to tell yourself that you don't like those things, constantly fighting them to instead focus on the movies, music and fashion you like today? Or are those childhood things simply part of your life, but not things you are interested in watching or listening to or wearing today? You've let go of those things, but still love them for the role they've played in making who you are today. Same thing.

Now, when it comes to physical addictions, this gets much more complicated; you're no longer dealing with psychological behavior patterns but physical chemical reactions even more outside our direct control. What *can* be done is recognize the psychological addiction component as a part of your addiction and yourself in order to slightly weaken its grasp on you (you don't *need* a hit of XXXXX, you're mind has been bent to make you think that you need it.). This doesn't break the physical addiction, but it makes dealing with the physical addiction slightly less complicated. You still need the drive to constantly reduce your repetition of the behavior, but by reducing your frustration with how long it is taking can help you have the patience with yourself (including moments of weakness, aka 'roadbumps' rather than 'failure') to fight the physical addiction unfettered. This of course includes patience with your own natural frustration and short-tempered self during the times of that withdrawal. This isn't a license to be an ass of course, or an excuse to give in to temptation when you can actually hold your ground, but there's no point in being mad at yourself and those behaviors any more than can be used as a motivation to help end the problem behavior. Any more anger than that simply makes stopping the behavior harder. You just can't stop acting out angrily at others unjustly until you stop being mad at yourself for not always being a purely logical being. None of us are what we'd like ourselves to be.

minas: Truth there. Venting your anger reduces the energy which was created by that anger, but the root causes of the anger are still there, all too ready to create more energy. Venting is essentially practicing your anger out loud. Just like those who run every day get really good at running, those who practice their anger out loud every day get really good at being angry out loud.

In regards to Mr John Timmer's remark about the JOC email being "positively hallucinatory", I find that comment to be quite disrespectful and without any substance whatsoever. Perhaps before you broadcast your willingness to jump on a bandwagon that is being driven by the religious right wing you may wish to consider the possibility of having to eat your own words in the future.

Oh noes guys, if we don't swear immortal fealty to the Journal of Cosmology, we must be a part of a vast right-wing conspiracy! I better sign my post so you all know who was posting here. I know that it already says my name on the post, but if I don't sign it, you might think that maybe someone else stole my account and is posting under my name. Only by making this signature that is clearly impossible to forge can you know who was really posting!

I believe the JoC staff may be forgiven, as they've all pledged to quit smoking together. Apparently, the support network inherent to quitting with your mates doesn't seem to be helping compensate for the self control anger issue..

Perhaps we should stay focused on the core of what this man is trying to present to the world at large.

What makes this one guy's message objectively special? Should we give equal consideration to everyone that wants to present their ideas to the world at large? The scientific ideas of L. Ron Hubbard, for example, deserve more respect.

BlinkingRedLight wrote:

I trust your response will be forthcoming Mr Timmer, and in a manner that doesn't rely on personal attacks.

Posting on message boards is like talking to God; not everyone gets a personalized response.

This issue will never just "disappear", nor will man-kinds innate curiosity of our origins in this massive universe that we inhabit.

Blinking Red Light

It's not really true that there's an innate curiosity about our origins. How does innate curiosity accord with the large contingent of people who believe our origins are fully established by religious teachings? Or the large contingent of people who just don't care? Or who campaign against teaching science at school?

This whole idea of "innate curiosity" and some endless impulse to explore every frontier is just a fairy tale meant to glorify the intellectual hobbies of a minority. I'm more or less in that minority myself, but let's be honest about what it is. We would live in a different world if curiosity was innate.